OT: TIGER

[Icebear]

mau, for many a few f-bombs is not a small thing. Such boorish language is best kept in private and away from public events. It may not be much to you but that is your choice. But language itself is not the issue but rather the lack of discipline and disdain it shows for ones audience, even Nixon had the sense to keep to closed offices and away from the public.

Tiger was once upon a time a great golfer. Just not who he portrayed himself to be. Being and great golfer and a great person both take practice and effort.

 

[John Fryer]

mau, for many a few f-bombs is not a small thing. Such boorish language is best kept in private and away from public events. It may not be much to you but that is your choice. But language itself is not the issue but rather the lack of discipline and disdain it shows for ones audience, even Nixon had the sense to keep to closed offices and away from the public.

Tiger was once upon a time a great golfer. Just not who he portrayed himself to be. Being and great golfer and a great person both take practice and effort.

Wow, Icebear! What a stretch!

You feel it is appropriate for this discussion to compare former President Nixon's public behavior to Tiger's?

Far out!

You also wrote: "Tiger was once upon a time a great golfer."

Since Tiger is still a very active, it just isn't possible for him to also have been "once upon a time a great golfer."

His greatness is in his potential.

He is currently tied for second in the number of PGA tournaments won.

He is also second in the number of PGA majors won.

Barring injury, would you bet against, if you were a betting man, of course, his becoming number one in both number of PGA wins and PGA tournaments won?

Lastly, and this is so obvious it shouldn't have to be mentioned. Card carrying PGA players play the game to win tournaments and majors and money.

No one who has ever played golf professionally has won more money on the tour than Tiger.

No one!

And could any of you name one active player who is even remotely close to Tiger in PGA tournaments and PGA majors wons?

Peace,

John Fryer

 

[Icebear]

Yes, John, but I did not compare Tiger's politics or anything else to Nixon except for his notorious use of explicatives. I chose that because Nixon was notorious for it in private but he knew and understood it had no place in public venues. Something Tiger needs to learn and too often has chosen to ignore.

Sure he is a tremendous golfer but his greatness on the course places no demand on me to respect him as a person and to purchase the products he endorses. I was a huge Tiger fan until his private antics were exposed. I even argued here on this board for patience in letting the facts come out and noted his use of Ambien as a potential contributing factor. As those facts came out, however, it became clear that we conducted himself in the worst of ways. Such behavior is not excused because others do it, and numerous pro golfers and athletes do. Nor is it excused because your father did it, although that may contribute understanding.

Fact is Tiger's approach to the all time wins record was achieved long before the scandal broke. He has been a mere shadow of his past until recently and will likely never achieve the dominance he once had. He will likely gain the wins to capture the all time wins record but he squandered years they were likely critical to catching Jack for the all time majors record, something I once assumed was a given. I could care less about how much Tiger has one in money great for him but irrelevent to his character. It is his character that is important to me. I will take my father's character over Tiger any moment of any day.

Fact is that Tiger is no longer the automatic subject he once was on Monday mornings in coffee shops all over the country. Maybe he will be again, maybe not but it is unlikely he will regain the respect he was held in before unless he brings more changes to how he conducts himself.

 

[Alydar]

Yes, John, but I did not compare Tiger's politics or anything else to Nixon except for his notorious use of explicatives. I chose that because Nixon was notorious for it in private but he knew and understood it had no place in public venues. Something Tiger needs to learn and too often has chosen to ignore.

Sure he is a tremendous golfer but his greatness on the course places no demand on me to respect him as a person and to purchase the products he endorses. I was a huge Tiger fan until his private antics were exposed. I even argued here on this board for patience in letting the facts come out and noted his use of Ambien as a potential contributing factor. As those facts came out, however, it became clear that we conducted himself in the worst of ways. Such behavior is not excused because others do it, and numerous pro golfers and athletes do. Nor is it excused because your father did it, although that may contribute understanding.

Fact is Tiger's approach to the all time wins record was achieved long before the scandal broke. He has been a mere shadow of his past until recently and will likely never achieve the dominance he once had. He will likely gain the wins to capture the all time wins record but he squandered years they were likely critical to catching Jack for the all time majors record, something I once assumed was a given. I could care less about how much Tiger has one in money great for him but irrelevent to his character. It is his character that is important to me. I will take my father's character over Tiger any moment of any day.

Fact is that Tiger is no longer the automatic subject he once was on Monday mornings in coffee shops all over the country. Maybe he will be again, maybe not but it is unlikely he will regain the respect he was held in before unless he brings more changes to how he conducts himself.

And do you have no respect for Diana any more either? DUI? Nude modelling? Is she dead to you also?

 

[Icebear]

I did not say that Tiger is dead to me. As long as anyone is alive reformation and growth is always possible. That is something I hope for myself and every other human being. Nor do I demand it of Tiger or anyone else. It is his choice as it is my choice whether to celebrate his actions or not. I suggested that he has areas of his life that need to change if he wants my respect and or hopes to regain as much as possible of the respect that others once held for him. If he doesn't want it, so be it. It is fine with me and there is no reason to consider me to have any authority over what he should or must do. It is fact, however, that there was a time when his people and him spent great effort marketing his character as part of his image.

I do have less respect for Diana because of her potty mouth. She's a big girl and it is her choice. Do I celebrate her DUI, no, because she put others at risk needlessly. Her nudity is not an issue. It was well done and within what was a very appropriate structure celebrating the human form as represented by athletes. I, also, have no problem with Micheangelo's David, the Sistene Chapel, Venus, or the bare breast of justice outside the supreme court. Diana's nudity was not exploitive nor demeaning to her or other women. Were she to appear on the pages of some other magazines and in other poses I would certainly have other opinions. Those images, however, do not require her to have clothes on or off. Exploitation and negative images are not dependent on nudity.

On the other hand, being a great athlete does not excuse bad behavior in other areas of life. Just because you are the best ever at one thing does not get you a pass on all things.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Yes, John, but I did not compare Tiger's politics or anything else to Nixon except for his notorious use of explicatives. I chose that because Nixon was notorious for it in private but he knew and understood it had no place in public venues. Something Tiger needs to learn and too often has chosen to ignore.

Sure he is a tremendous golfer but his greatness on the course places no demand on me to respect him as a person and to purchase the products he endorses. I was a huge Tiger fan until his private antics were exposed. I even argued here on this board for patience in letting the facts come out and noted his use of Ambien as a potential contributing factor. As those facts came out, however, it became clear that we conducted himself in the worst of ways. Such behavior is not excused because others do it, and numerous pro golfers and athletes do. Nor is it excused because your father did it, although that may contribute understanding.

Fact is Tiger's approach to the all time wins record was achieved long before the scandal broke. He has been a mere shadow of his past until recently and will likely never achieve the dominance he once had. He will likely gain the wins to capture the all time wins record but he squandered years they were likely critical to catching Jack for the all time majors record, something I once assumed was a given. I could care less about how much Tiger has one in money great for him but irrelevent to his character. It is his character that is important to me. I will take my father's character over Tiger any moment of any day.

Fact is that Tiger is no longer the automatic subject he once was on Monday mornings in coffee shops all over the country. Maybe he will be again, maybe not but it is unlikely he will regain the respect he was held in before unless he brings more changes to how he conducts himself.

Agree 100%

 

[Alydar]

Of course every one has a right to choose whom to respect and why. You make a great point that the perceived character of public figures is in some part just a marketing tool. Tiger is no different from thousands of other public figures who make money representing others. I stopped forming opinions about the character of athletes I never met. It's like loving an actor because of the roles they play. The problem is in swallowing the PR. We have no idea what any of these athletes are like in their private lives. Lee Trevino had a public persona as the "merry Mex". Happy-go-lucky Lee was always smiling and joking around. Wrong. I watched him several years at the GHO and he was a crabby, cursing PITA until the camera was on him. What that says is that we can't trust any of the media images of public persons. So I ignore them all, the good and the bad. TV likes to take successful athletes and put them on a pedestal. Pedestals are for statues, not for real-life people who are all flawed.

The media works for sponsers who pay the athletes to hype their products. They lie to appease the sponsers. So we find out that Tiger isn't a statue. That he is a flawed human like the rest of us. Big surprise.

 

[Icebear]

Of course every one has a right to choose whom to respect and why. You make a great point that the perceived character of public figures is in some part just a marketing tool. Tiger is no different from thousands of other public figures who make money representing others. I stopped forming opinions about the character of athletes I never met. It's like loving an actor because of the roles they play. The problem is in swallowing the PR. We have no idea what any of these athletes are like in their private lives. Lee Trevino had a public persona as the "merry Mex". Happy-go-lucky Lee was always smiling and joking around. Wrong. I watched him several years at the GHO and he was a crabby, cursing PITA until the camera was on him. What that says is that we can't trust any of the media images of public persons. So I ignore them all, the good and the bad. TV likes to take successful athletes and put them on a pedestal. Pedestals are for statues, not for real-life people who are all flawed.

The media works for sponsers who pay the athletes to hype their products. They lie to appease the sponsers. So we find out that Tiger isn't a statue. That he is a flawed human like the rest of us. Big surprise.

Good, then you should not have a problem with folks calling them out for bad behavior and holding them accountable publically for their behavior.

 

[Alydar]

You miss my point. Tiger has done nothing that isn't common among real people. Why is he being singled out by some folks who don't have a problem with others doing the same thing? It comes across to me of being sanctimonious.

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

 

[pinotbear]

No, you are - again, and again - missing the point. What others do is completely irrelavent. You said in your post that Tiger has always been a gentleman on the course. It has been firmly established that he has not.

Being a gentleman is not a flexible standard, depending on what others do or do not do: in fact, in golf, there's quite a bit of case precedence, if you will, with fines imposed when a player behaves inappropriately. Individual consequence for individual failings.

You simply do not want to consider any point of view other than your own, evidence to the contrary.

 

[Alydar]

No one is a complete gentleman on the course. Bobby Jones, the consumate gentleman cursed and once walked off the course in a hissy fit because he was playing badly. Tiger, IMO, has conducted himself in an exemplary way on the course. Always has. And he was under a microscope from day one while most young golfers play their first few years without ever getting on camera. Consider the fact that Tiger has cameras clicking during his shot several times a round. Phil has it done to him and quits in frustration. Not one word from those who castigate Tiger for dropping an F bomb. Phil slams a club on the ground and he is "displaying his competitive spirit". Tiger does it and is accused of having no character and of being disrespectful. That's hypocracy. Another example: I watched Jack ride a cart in competition during the 98 or 99 PGA championship at Wingfoot. This after he loudly protested allowing Casey Martin to do the same. Yet not a word. Another double standard. My point is that it's golf, not a morality play. You want idols and saints? Join a religion. If we want to judge someone, we should look in a mirror.

What others do doesn't condone Tiger's mistakes but when I see someone questioning his character while extolling the virtue of others who are no better I must question their motives. There seems to be one standard for Tiger and a lesser standard for everyone else.

And I do consider other opinions. I just think they are wrong. Tiger isn't Jimmy Swaggert, a morality preacher who got caught slumming with prostitutes. he's a golfer. I don't remembering him claiming to be anything else.

 

[Icebear]

You miss my point. Tiger has done nothing that isn't common among real people. Why is he being singled out by some folks who don't have a problem with others doing the same thing? It comes across to me of being sanctimonious.

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

As I said previously bad behavior by others does not justify bad behavior by any individual. If so, and by following your logic above, we could justify today on the basis of sexual abuse by priests, bishops and pastors throughout the Roman Catholic Church and other denominations that Jerry Sandusky's behavior is fine. Obviously, that is a blatantly non-sensical argument.

I don't suggest tossing Bible verses around unless you have taken the time to research them and understand their application. Scripture, also, says that whatever we as his disciples bind on earth is bound in heaven and that whatever we loose on earth is loosed in heaven. This passage is understood to be the basis for the Office of the Keys within the church and exactly a basis for the responsibility to speak clear words of warning against wrong actions. (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18)

The passage you cite, John chapter 8, is an event involving attempted manipulation of the law to entrap Jesus. Leviticus 20:10 requires that both the man and the woman caught in adultery be put to death. John 8 is an action being taken without the presence of both parties involved in the adultery rather than right action within the offices of community and holding both equally accountable. Ironically, this implies exactly the double standard you fear. Jesus stopped the actions of the group, but he then said to the woman, "Go and sin no more." He did not condone the wrong behavior.

Understanding and application is important. You would have been better served to refer to the speck and log of Matthew 7. Even that passage is a warning about casual judgments and a lack of equality in judgments. In other words, judge others by exactly the same standard you would have yourself judged by. Nor does any of this prevent or deny Tiger being held with the full authority of grace by the church as well when and where ever amendment of life is present. What is bound is bound and what is loosed is loosed.

In addition, to assert refusing to support Tiger's behaviors has anything to do with stoning him for them is mere silliness. What I have offered here is nothing more than a means to saying, "Go and sin no more."

 

[Alydar]

As I said previously bad behavior by others does not justify bad behavior by any individual. If so, and by following your logic above, we could justify today on the basis of sexual abuse by priests, bishops and pastors that Jerry Sandusky's behavior is fine. Obviously, that is a blatantly non-sensical argument.

I don't suggest tossing Bible verses around unless you have taken the time to research them and understand their application. Scripture, also, says that whatever we as his disciples bind on earth is bound in heaven and that whatever we loose on earth is loosed in heaven. This passage is understood to be the basis for the Office of the Keys within the church and exactly the responsibility to speak clear words of warning against wrong actions. (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18) The passage you cite is warning against manipulation of the law to entrap Jesus without the presence of both parties involved in the adultery rather than right action within the offices of community. Jesus stopped the actions of the group, but he then said to the women, "Go and sin no more." Understanding and application is important. In addition, to assert refusing to support Tiger's behaviors has anything to do with stoning him for them is mere silliness. What I have offered here is nothing more than a means to saying, "Go and sin no more."

"we could justify today on the basis of sexual abuse by priests, bishops and pastors that Jerry Sandusky's behavior is fine"

No! I'm saying stop judging all together. Professional sports isn't a morality play. And IMO a lot of people formed their opinion of Tiger based on preconceived ideas and have spent the last 13 or so years justifying that opinion.

 

[Icebear]

"we could justify today on the basis of sexual abuse by priests, bishops and pastors that Jerry Sandusky's behavior is fine"

No! I'm saying stop judging all together. Professional sports isn't a morality play. And IMO a lot of people formed their opinion of Tiger based on preconceived ideas and have spent the last 13 or so years justifying that opinion.

Judgment based on behavior within a society must always exist or else chaos reigns without limit as to what is to be tolerated. The judgments we are discussing here are a refusal to sanction and support bad behavior nothing more. They have no eternal power or threat. They are penultimate events not ultimate ones. The purpose in all these things is for all human relationships to be restored and for the community and personal relationships to be healed. See Matthew 5:21ff.

 

[Alydar]

Sanction & support? Chaos? First give me a list of all the golfers you have "called out" for bad behavior. The list should be long because the sport is full of prima donna's, cursing and club tossing. But if your list of those you have called out for "bad behavior" consists only of Tiger then I question your motivation in doing so.

 

[Icebear]

Sanction & support? Chaos? First give me a list of all the golfers you have "called out" for bad behavior. The list should be long because the sport is full of prima donna's, cursing and club tossing. But if your list of those you have called out for "bad behavior" consists only of Tiger then I question your motivation in doing so.

I call out not just golfers but parishioners both privately and at times when necessary (which is rare) publicly. It is part of my job. When it is so significant as to need public rebuke there is a clear process by which it is done and every time a person seeks grace you forgive them in real and tangible manner. Catholics and Anglicans excommunicate and Amish among others shun but always with the hope of restoration and healing. Read Matthew 18:14-21

I was very vocal in central PA on Pennlive at the time of Rene P's reign at PSU. I ministered to some involved in those events. I was upfront and vocal about her behaviors being unacceptable in the treatment of players. I was criticized by some for "judging" her. It is part of my job but the even greater part is to sit down and help to manifest grace, divine grace, in the life of someone seeking it. If Rene had come to me I would have had no problem counseling her and caring for her spiritually. Nor would I have a problem doing it for Jerry Sandusky. Nor did I for the high school kid I ministered to in jail who had killed his entirely family.

I know others don't understand how someone can do this but come June 26th it will be what I was charged with doing 30 years ago when I was ordained. 3o years, hard to believe. I still have clay feet and a plank in my eye but it is the task and vocation I was called to do. Many can't do it and many classmates have left the ministry over the years. Still if one is to believe in grace then one must, also, believe in the law because grace without the law in meaningless and the law without grace is hopelessness.

The thread was about Tiger not others. I have walked numerous PGA events and I am well aware of the behavior of many away from the camera. I hold them to the same standards as Tiger. They are not, however, the subject of this thread.

 

[mauconnfan]

No, you are - again, and again - missing the point. What others do is completely irrelavent. You said in your post that Tiger has always been a gentleman on the course. It has been firmly established that he has not.

Being a gentleman is not a flexible standard, depending on what others do or do not do: in fact, in golf, there's quite a bit of case precedence, if you will, with fines imposed when a player behaves inappropriately. Individual consequence for individual failings.

You simply do not want to consider any point of view other than your own, evidence to the contrary.

Funny pinot.....I don't want to consider any point other than my own? And you are assuming what? EWvidence on Tiger not being a gentleman? If you have it please rbing it to me....if it's throwing an FBomb and a club on occasion do yourself a favor and quit watching sports okay.............

 

[stamfordhusky]

Tiger, IMO, has conducted himself in an exemplary way on the course. Always has.

Spitting on the green - for others to putt through. Cursing repeatedly. Throwing clubs. Etc. All exemplary?

 

[Alydar]

I call out not just golfers but parishioners both privately and at times when necessary (which is rare) publicly. It is part of my job. When it is so significant as to need public rebuke there is a clear process by which it is done and every time a person seeks grace you forgive them. Catholics and Anglicans excommunicate and Amish among others shun but always with the hope of restoration and healing. Read Matthew 18:14-21

The thread was about Tiger not others. I have walked numerous PGA events and I am well aware of the behavior of many away from the camera. I hold them to the same standards as Tiger. They are not, however, the subject of this thread.

I'm confused. First you say you justify judging Tiger because "Judgment based on behavior within a society must always exist or else chaos reigns without limit as to what is to be tolerated" So your judgement is based on societal rules but what others do in comparison to what Tiger does is irrelevant? You can't have it both ways. Tiger's behavior within a society by defintion considers his behavior as it compares to others in that society. In this case the "society" is the PGA and in that society Tiger is hardly at the top of the list of boorish players.

BTW - Do you judge your parishioners based on what you read in the paper or hear on TV?

 

[Alydar]

Spitting on the green - for others to putt through. Cursing repeatedly. Throwing clubs. Etc. All exemplary?

Coughing up flem because you suffer from chronic allergies is a little different from spitting on another player's line. And if cursing in sports were grounds for condemnation we would be limited to Pee Wee baseball as a spectator sport. (and some of them would be ineligible )

 

[Alydar]

BTW - no one had to putt through the flem. It is considered casual water and can be removed before putting.

 

[Icebear]

I'm confused. First you say you justify judging Tiger because "Judgment based on behavior within a society must always exist or else chaos reigns without limit as to what is to be tolerated" (1) So your judgement is based on societal rules but what others do in comparison to what Tiger does is irrelevant? You can't have it both ways. Tiger's behavior within a society by defintion considers his behavior as it compares to others in that society. In this case the "society" is the PGA and in that society Tiger is hardly at the top of the list of boorish players.

BTW - Do you judge your parishioners based on (2) what you read in the paper or hear on TV?

(1) Societal rules and individual behaviors are often at odds with each other. Despite the behaviors of priests, bishops, pastors and Sandusky we have societal rules that prohibit those behaviors. My father and mother taught me early on the falacy of defending myself on the basis of others behavior. So far I have never jumped off that bridge.

The PGA is not society. The PGA is one small niche within the larger society. The PGA depends on having a marketable product to attract the larger society into its gate receipts and is well aware of the need to clean up the public face of its product or else it would not edit its TV broadcasts so carefully.

(2) I have seen Tiger's on course behavior for myself it is not that rare and I have heard Tiger's admissions of his behavior in his marriage.

As to parishioners read Matthew 18 the process is there. It does not guarantee success. Sometimes those involved cannot admit their fault and guilt and simply walk away in shame unable to admit their sin. It is impossible to bring them healing in such cases. I had to deal with that in someone stealing from a church.

 

[vtcwbuff]

Well said IB. For myself I fall back on the old adage that if you want to find out about a person's character, just play a round of golf with them. IMO Wood's on course behavior provides insight into what type of person he is. His off course behavior reinforces that.

 

[mauconnfan]

Well said IB. For myself I fall back on the old adage that if you want to find out about a person's character, just play a round of golf with them. IMO Wood's on course behavior provides insight into what type of person he is. His off course behavior reinforces that.

Yeah because you have played so many rounds with him??

Why aren't we talking about Sergio or Pat Perez or Colin Montogomerie? Oh I know why because Tiger wins and makes a ton of money that's why. There are so many golfers, Arnie included and I'm sure you all love him, who have had behavior issues on and off the course. C'mon it's a sport right? Tennis was only as good as McEnroe, Connors, Lendl and hasn't been the same since. Showing passion and wanting to be real good at your craft isn't a sin. Unless you just aren't a fan!!

 

[Icebear]

Believe me, mau, I would have called out everyone of them, too. It's the behavior that's wrong without regard to person.